Media personality Milo Yiannopolous took a question from an audience member during a visit to the University of New Mexico that took place late January of this year. This is the same event when some Muslim women in the audience yelled at Milo and then left the room when he made remarks about Islam.

In this sequence, Milo gives his views on climate change while sharing his experience working at a non-profit GMO involved in climate change research. He ties it all in to the overall issue raised by the audience member.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-developmentmeans bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.” – John Holdren

•••

If you’re relatively familiar with the climate “debate”, you will know that the rapid cooling period from the 1940’s to the 1970’s led to climate “experts” (climate scientists) declaring the end of life as we know it, in the form of the “Global Cooling” scare:

A few examples (And apologies if these sound all too familiar with the current global warming climate change scare) :

1. In 1976 the CIA warned that (man-made) Global Cooling would bring – “Drought, Starvation, Social Unrest And Political Upheaval”:

Four years later (1981) Professor Stephen Schneider became a Global Warming alarmist:

Published: August 22, 1981

A team of Federal scientists says it has detected an overall warming trend in the earth’s atmosphere extending back to the year 1880. They regard this as evidence of the validity of the ”greenhouse” effect, in which increasing amounts of carbon dioxide cause steady temperature increases.

The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ”almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ”flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world” within a century or less.

A leading participant in past carbon dioxide studies has been Dr. Stephen H. Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

A MUST SEE interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight, featuring Professor Judith Curry who has recently quit her position as the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Her reasoning is simple yet so very damaging and dangerous, not only to “climate science” but to the fate of all “sciences”. Her resignation is to do with, not only being vilified by colleagues for having a sceptical (scientific) view of “climate change”, but importantly the ongoing ‘monopolistic’ funding of research into the science of man-made global warming, versus the non-existent resources directed toward the study of natural climate change.

This imbalance of government funding skews and distorts the science that is output, and as Joanne Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”

The systemic failure self-perpetuates :

Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?

How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935

The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.

Right, Left, Centre, Conservative, Liberal or communist – I still can’t get my head around the fact that ANY human being can be intrinsically motivated by ideology over facts, data and reason in support of the wind experiment.

“Progressiveness is a sickness” has been thrown around a bit lately but surely hard data pertaining to blackouts, energy poverty and economic ruin must prove unequivocally that wind energy is a compete failure and surely MUST override stubborn “save the planet” ideology?!

In 2017, with examples like Germany, Ontario and South Australia on file, any political leader still pushing subsidised wind power on his or her people is either a certifiable lunatic or is in on it.

Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York State simply leaves that question begging with his move to throw $360 million of taxpayers’ money to the wind.

In New York, Wind And Solar Get Double Their Value In Subsidies
The Daily Caller
Andrew Follett
16 January 2017

New York state is paying 11 large wind and solar power projects two times more in subsidies than the projects actually generate in electricity.

New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the $360 million in spending over the weekend, but didn’t reveal the precise amount of funding for each project. A good portion of the funding will go to the large company Invenergy’s 105.8 megawatt Number Three wind…

Greens get hysterical when forests burn, because they don’t understand anything about science, forests, or nature. Many species of trees can’t exist without fire. Aspens are making a rapid comeback in California, thanks to the fires.

The Sangre de Cristo Mountains of Northern New Mexico (where I used to work as a wilderness ranger) have the tallest Aspen trees in the world. These were the result of huge fires during the hot/dry 1890’s.